DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 10/1/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 19 and 20 have been added. Claims 1-18 remain in the application with claims 16-18 have been withdrawn as detailed in the paper filed 5/2/25. Hence, claims 1-15 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 10/1/25, the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn, however, the following rejections have been necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-6,9,10,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1477204 in combination with McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) and JP 3666022.
GB 1477204 teaches improvements relating to interleaving materials for glass sheets. GB 1477204 teaches it is known to use wood flour in powdered form between the glass sheets as interleaving materials which is known to be porous cellulose material (pg. 1, lines 38-45 and pg. 2, lines 53-57).
GB 1477204 fails to teach the claimed median particle size of the natural composite material to be between 80 microns and 150 microns.
McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) teaches interleaving particle sizes of 100-300 microns (col. 3, lines 20-37).
JP 3666022 teaches coconut shell powder average diameter of 60-120 microns as well as mor than 50% f the powder particle diameter to be 50-130 microns (paragraph 8 of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GB 1477204 interleaving powder by using the claimed interleaving median particle sizes of 80-150 microns as evidenced by McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) and JP 3666022 with the expectation of success of protecting stacked glass sheets.
Regarding claim 1, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of median particle size that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claims 1,2,5 and 6, GB 1477204 teaches wood flour as a cellulose base material and lignin (pg. 2, lines 53-57).
Regarding claim 3, GB 1477204 teaches coconut shell flour can also be used as an interleaving material which would meet the claimed fruit kernel flour (pg. 2, lines 53-57).
Regarding claim 4, McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) teaches a similar method for protecting stacked glass surfaces whereby the particulate interleaving material includes wood flour and ground corn cobs (col. 1, lines 25-37).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, GB 1477204 teaches using a weakly acidic acid with the interleaving powdered material and includes adipic or succinic acid (pg. 2, lines 28-50).
Claims 7,8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1477204 in combination with McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) and JP 3666022 further in combination with Armstrong and Clayton et al “powder handling: make the most of flow additives; Chemical processing”.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of GB 1477204 in combination with McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) are incorporated here.
GB 1477204 in combination with McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) fails to teach including a flow additive such as pyrogenic aluminum oxide, pyrogenic silica or a combination thereof.
Armstrong and Clayton et al “powder handling: make the most of flow additives; Chemical processing” teaches use of flow additive to enhance flow properties of powders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GB 1477204 in combination with McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) and JP 3666022 by using flow additives as evidenced by Armstrong and Clayton et al “powder handling: make the most of flow additives; Chemical processing” with the expectation of improving the coating of the glass sheets with the interleaving powder coating.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Armstrong and Clayton et al “powder handling: make the most of flow additives; Chemical processing” teaches using flow additives and the amounts and materials for this use would be a matter of design choice practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof the specific materials and/or amounts.
Regarding claims 11-14, GB 1477204 teaches using a weakly acidic acid with the interleaving powdered material and includes adipic or succinic acid (pg. 2, lines 28-50).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) teaches a similar method for protecting stacked glass surfaces whereby the particulate interleaving material includes wood flour and ground corn cobs (col. 1, lines 25-37).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that the Office did not reject cancelled claim 20 in view of GB 1477204.
The Examiner disagrees. As detailed in the rejection filed 7/9/25, page 5, paragraph 10, claim 20 was rejected over GB 1477204 in combination with McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) further in combination with Armstrong and Clayton et al “powder handling: make the most of flow additives; Chemical processing”.
Applicant argued McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) teaches particle size of synthetic polymers and not natural composite materials and one would not have been suggested to select such.
The Examiner agrees in part. In addition, McCurdy et al. (5,451,457) is relied upon for teaching the particle size and not for the specific materials of the particles as this is taught in the primary reference to GB 1477204 and hence the combination would be suggestive of the claimed particle size for other materials as well and not limited as argued. Furthermore, JP 3666022 teaches 50% or more of the particles (claimed median) is from 50-130 microns.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715